1968 replies to this topic

[Chrlzs]

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

The Mythbusters video is attempting to debunk the debunkers theories that Moon landings were faked.

So...your misunderstanding of the term 'debunk' is, in some way, giving us a specific example?  See below*.

Again, I ask you to back up what you said with EXAMPLES - let's try slightly different wording:

What, specifically, is your best example showing "..that it turns the debunkers against each other"?

Don't just handwave towards a youtube video - tell us exactly what you are referring to, with quotes and cites.  BTW, I'm quite familiar with the Mythbusters look at the myth of the 'moon hoax'..  It was quite well done given the limited amount of airtime they gave it, and the fact that they aren't imaging experts or space scientists...


* And to help your understanding, I'm a debunker.  I don't like BUNK (like the Apollo Hoax myth) and I do like to explain why/how the BUNK is wrong and that the folks that push it either:
- haven't a clue, but love to hear themselves talk
- want to make a fast buck from the gullible and uninformed
- are trolls...

[MID]

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

The Mythbusters video is attempting to debunk the debunkers theories that Moon landings were faked.

I think that you've proven yourself rather worthless in this discussion.

"...debunk the dedbunkers theories that the Moon landings were faked.?"

Uh...we'll make it as simple as possible--debunkers have no such theories.  Debunkers typically, as they have on this thread, shredded the claims of the HB folks, the CT minds, who do say that the Moon missions and landings and all associated with them were faked.

They have nonsensical, and completely disproven claims.  Debunkers debunk them, they don't assault other debunkers.
Mthbusters are debunkers.

Maybe that makes it clearer for you?

Of course, Chrlzs above said something very similar.   Maybe seeing both of us together will fortify the message??

Edited by MID, 26 October 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

This is why E.T stays away from this Rock !

[turbonium]

MID, on 21 October 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

THOSE WIRES, IN ALL 3 OF THESE SEQUENTIAL STILLS TAKEN OF  DAVE and  JIM, ARE JUST PERFECTLY HIDDEN, EH?
...just like they were in 1950 movies (and you were around for those too???), when lighting and backgrounds like this (high contrast, bright direct sunlighting always) had never been seen before and wouldn't be seen live for another 19 years?

They're not even producing the slightest evidence of holding him up...no connection points or hardware visible...not a trace of the rigging necessary to support him, not a single shadow.  No disruption in the slightest of the mountain or the terrain aft of Jim's position.

NASA photo guys did that perfection work?  When?
Certainly not when the stuff was being broadcast live on TV?

You obviously weren't around for that TV, which was as spectacular as the photos above were.  And it only got better, if that's fathomable (I'm aware it probably isn't to you!).  Apollo 15 through 17 had amazing TV from the lunar surface (or, I suppose, from some sound stage in Hollywood, or out at Area 51, or some secret place like that!).

You really don't get it, MID.

Wires (or anything else, for that matter) could be edited out of any Apollo image/video.

So there is no evidence of wires, period. If a spacesuit shows evidence of wires pulling it up, they just edit the suit. Same as any sci-fi movie does.

Do you 'see' my point now?

[Gaden]

Your point is rediculous. It isonly speculation at best. Simply making an assertion does not make it true. There is no evidence for wires, no evidence for a conspiracy, no evidence supprting your view at all. Instead of making these ludicrous claims, post some kind of evidence. Do you see our point now? Get it?

[skyeagle409]

Gaden, on 27 October 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

Your point is rediculous. It isonly speculation at best. Simply making an assertion does not make it true. There is no evidence for wires, no evidence for a conspiracy, no evidence supprting your view at all. Instead of making these ludicrous claims, post some kind of evidence. Do you see our point now? Get it?

DITTO!!  

[frenat]

turbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

You really don't get it, MID.

Wires (or anything else, for that matter) could be edited out of any Apollo image/video.

So there is no evidence of wires, period. If a spacesuit shows evidence of wires pulling it up, they just edit the suit. Same as any sci-fi movie does.

Do you 'see' my point now?

In live video where the astronauts are reacting in real time to the President and mission control.  Yeah, that's done all the time.  

[turbonium]

MID, on 21 October 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Unsatisfactory.  If you're going to make things up, it's best to actually answer the question while doing so.  It makes incorrect answers seem like they're atleast delivered with a modicum of sincerety.


I asked you how the photo was made, not about photos of models of a fake lunar surface used in simulators, or about pictures of the Moon  that aren't showing Hadley Rille.  I was sopeaking directly to a photo taken of the Apollo 15 landing area by the men who would be landing there.

The fact is, the photo was made by a rather expensive Hasselblad 500C pointed by a man  through a small window  in an amazing spacecraft that was on orbit around the Moon in July, 1971.  That spacecraft got their by the favors of a fine Saturn V launch vehicle and a very fine S4-B third stage that put the spacecraft on a very precise trajectory to lunar orbit insertion.

I was just getting at the degree of your actual knowledge and the extent you'd go to to post nonsense again.

It worked.  But, it's boring and there's not much more to say to you.  I hoped for a bit better than this, but alas...no chance!

You asked me how it was done, and I told you how - with models.

Who cares if Hadley Rille isn't seen in the 'moon' model photo? It fooled everyone, including all the 'experts' at NASA, that it was the genuine lunar surface!!  

(Hmm..Maybe there's a reason Hadley Rille isn't shown on their models, come to think of it., but I digress...)

NASA fooled eveyone with a moon model, as you know. So how is Apollo any harder to fake?.

[turbonium]

Gaden, on 27 October 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

Your point is rediculous. It isonly speculation at best. Simply making an assertion does not make it true. There is no evidence for wires, no evidence for a conspiracy, no evidence supprting your view at all. Instead of making these ludicrous claims, post some kind of evidence. Do you see our point now? Get it?

You should have reviewed this issue beforehand, and then post on it.

It began with MID. In essence, he asked me how the astronauts were able to jump so high if it was a fake. His example was a photo of John Young in mid-leap.

So I said they could do it with wires.

He asked me to point out wires in his photo, or in any other Apollo photo/video.

I said they would have edited wires out of the Apollo photos/videos. And was done in movies - before Apollo.

He asked for proof of that. I showed him the proof.

So now he just keeps asking me for evidence of wires in Apollo images/videos.

No wires are seen in sci-fi movies, or in the Apollo images/videos. I know that both can be done with wires, but I can't prove either of them did, as I've got no verifiable evidence.

How could it be done? Wires.

I can't prove it, and never said I could.

I do find some great evidence in video clips, but I can't prove it.  

So do you get it now?

[turbonium]

frenat, on 27 October 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

In live video where the astronauts are reacting in real time to the President and mission control.  Yeah, that's done all the time.  

A claim without any evidence is just one's personal opinion. Also, exactly what does it have to do with the issue of wires?

[skyeagle409]

frenat, on 27 October 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

In live video where the astronauts are reacting in real time to the President and mission control.  Yeah, that's done all the time.  

The moon hoax folks don't think of simple little things like that. On another note;

Quote

Apollo 11

• The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies

Apollo 16

Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16. Honeysuckle Creek tracked Apollo 16 and recorded the audio of the landing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NASA's Apollo Landing Sites Will Be Protected

http://news.discover...tes-120528.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Apollo 14

Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions

Sightings of Apollo 11, and a Table Mountain photo, were reported in "Observations of Apollo 11", Sky and Telescope, November 1969, pp. 358-359. The Table Mountain 60-cm image is shown here, by courtesy of Jim Young. It is a 12-minute exposure (0512-0524 UT on 24 July, on the home stretch) with the spacecraft showing as the diagonal streak. There were few sightings from North America during the outbound journey due to clouds over many sites. However, Brian Fenerty reports, "When Apollo 11 was outbound towards the Moon, I was in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and saw the mission on its way with my own eyes (from Saxe Point Park by the ocean). One of the newspapers published a map showing where to look in the evening sky on two consecutive nights, showing where each night the craft would show as a point of bright light. Since I knew enough about what was normally visible, it was unmistakable."


A group with the Chabot Observatory 50-cm refractor managed to detect it as late as 0425 UT on July 18, and again during the return on July 23. Amateurs on Mount Kobau in British Columbia followed the final night of the return trip.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Apollo 16

Dale Ireland reports observing the Apollo 16 spacecraft (CSM+LM) and S-IVB using the 12-inch f/15 Clark refractor at Jewett Observatory at Washington State University. Each was typically magnitude 11 or 12.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 October 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[beale947]

turbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

A claim without any evidence is just one's personal opinion. Also, exactly what does it have to do with the issue of wires?

My God! The irony in this post is being read at two and a half kilo/facepalms! You have never provided a single bit of proof. That makes it an 'opinion'.

[turbonium]

beale947, on 27 October 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

My God! The irony in this post is being read at two and a half kilo/facepalms! You have never provided a single bit of proof. That makes it an 'opinion'.

Thanks for your filler post, but I'd prefer you contribute somerhing to the actual issue next time.

[frenat]

turbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

A claim without any evidence is just one's personal opinion. Also, exactly what does it have to do with the issue of wires?

What does it have to do with wires?  Are you just trolling now?  YOU claimed they did everything with wires.  YOU claimed they were edited out just like any other movie.  YOU need to show how they did that in real time on a demonstrably live video.  Support YOUR claim.

turbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

Thanks for your filler post, but I'd prefer you contribute somerhing to the actual issue next time.

That's the same thing we've been hoping about you.

[MID]

turbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

You asked me how it was done, and I told you how - with models.

Who cares if Hadley Rille isn't seen in the 'moon' model photo? It fooled everyone, including all the 'experts' at NASA, that it was the genuine lunar surface!!  

(Hmm..Maybe there's a reason Hadley Rille isn't shown on their models, come to think of it., but I digress...)

NASA fooled eveyone with a moon model, as you know. So how is Apollo any harder to fake?.

I can see you take no warnings, and insist in posting innanities...


Well, their "Models" is kinda cute turb, but I'm actually looking at the photo I mentioned, taken from about 60 NM, lunar orbit.  The  model was the actual Hadley Rille, including their landing site.  How they took this photo was to go launching outbound from Cape Kennedy, Florida on a massive Saturn V rocket, we have models of them too but they can't fly to the Moon under their own power and guidance.  ~3,050 tons of it did that mission, as one of these behemoths did all the other nine lunar flights of the program.

I guess you'd never realized that?!


Oh, and uh...again, I, nor anyone else knows what "models" you're talking about , but there were lots of sites, and thousands of photos taken.  Here's some other photos taken of Hadley Rille:






And oh my, Yes!  Just prior to actually going down in that place that you claim the models didn't show.???


What a place it was!  We had a blast on Apollo 15.   It was supreme flying, combined with adventure, tons of HQ photos (you know, magazines of fakes!!! ), films and lots of live TV (where the network took the wires out of it (or NASA did, from 200,000 miles away...I mean, I don't know who was doing that, but maybe you do  (...I can't really imagine that**)???
..., While we watched them pickin up rocks and falling down ....just amazing instant digital modifications of live video , and we didn't even have digital capability, or digital cameras( we still used film back then!), and all that.

** And how would you know any of this?  You weren't old enough to be out of cartoons when Apollo was flying!

But what I was really getting at with my question was whether you could explain how Hadley Rille was ophotographed, like all the other landing sites were, by men, prior to them actually landing at the places.

You said models, but that doesn't really answer the question.  Wrong answer.

I think you can go away now.